Nationgreat 2025-06-22 06:55 p.m.Even so the Defendant is entitled to a hearing when the transgression is supposed to have happened outside the Court in session.
That the holding in the Terry case is not to be considered as an unlimited abandonment of the basic due process procedural safeguards, even in contempt cases, was spelled out with emphatic language in Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517, a contempt case arising in a federal district court. There, it was pointed out that, for a court to exercise the extraordinary but narrowly limited power to punish for contempt without adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, the court-disturbing misconduct must not only occur in the court's immediate presence, but that the judge must have personal knowledge of it acquired by his own observation of the contemptuous conduct. "In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 274-5 (1948) (emphasis added)